Study sheds new light on how the Sun affects the Earth's climate

Oct 06, 2010
Study sheds new light on how the Sun affects the Earth's climate

The Sun's activity has recently affected the Earth's atmosphere and climate in unexpected ways, according to a new study published today in the journal Nature. The study, by researchers from Imperial College London and the University of Colorado, shows that a decline in the Sun's activity does not always mean that the Earth becomes cooler.

It is well established that the Sun's activity waxes and wanes over an 11-year cycle and that as its activity wanes, the overall amount of radiation reaching the Earth decreases. Today's study looked at the Sun's activity over the period 2004-2007, when it was in a declining part of its 11-year activity cycle.

Although the Sun's activity declined over this period, the new research shows that it may have actually caused the Earth to become warmer. Contrary to expectations, the amount of energy reaching the Earth at visible wavelengths increased rather than decreased as the Sun's activity declined, causing this warming effect.

Following this surprising finding, the researchers behind the study believe it is possible that the inverse is also true and that in periods when the Sun's activity increases, it tends to cool, rather than warm, the . This is based on what is already known about the relationship between the Sun's activity and its total energy output.

Overall solar activity has been increasing over the past century, so the researchers believe it is possible that during this period, the has been contributing a small cooling effect, rather than a small warming effect as had previously been thought.

Professor Joanna Haigh, the lead author of the study who is Head of the Department of Physics and member of the Grantham Institute for at Imperial College London, said: "These results are challenging what we thought we knew about the Sun's effect on our . However, they only show us a snapshot of the Sun's activity and its behaviour over the three years of our study could be an anomaly.

"We cannot jump to any conclusions based on what we have found during this comparatively short period and we need to carry out further studies to explore the Sun's activity, and the patterns that we have uncovered, on longer timescales. However, if further studies find the same pattern over a longer period of time, this could suggest that we may have overestimated the Sun's role in warming the planet, rather than underestimating it."

Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, the Director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London, added: "We know that the Earth's climate is affected both by human activity and by natural forces and today's study improves our understanding of how the Sun influences our climate. Studies like this are vital for helping us to create a clear picture of how our climate is changing and through this, to work out how we can best protect our planet."

The researchers used satellite data and computer modelling to analyse how the spectrum of radiation and the amount of energy from the Sun has been changing since 2004. Instruments on the SORCE satellite have been measuring the Sun's energy output at many different wavelengths. The researchers fed the data from SORCE into an existing computer model of the Earth's atmosphere and compared their results with the results obtained using earlier, less comprehensive, data on the solar spectrum.

Explore further: Sampling study suggests Mississippi River has ample sand to prevent delta land loss

More information: "An influence of solar spectral variations on radiative forcing of climate" Nature, 7 October 2010

Related Stories

Sun's constant size surprises scientists

May 13, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- A group of astronomers led by the University of Hawaii's Dr. Jeff Kuhn has found that in recent times the sun's size has been remarkably constant. Its diameter has changed by less than one ...

Evidence shaky for Sun's major role in past climate changes

Sep 30, 2004

Computer models of Earth's climate have consistently linked long-term, high-magnitude variations in solar output to past climate changes. Now a closer look at earlier studies of the Sun casts doubt on evidence of such cycles of brightness, their inten ...

Recommended for you

Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

Apr 18, 2014

A powerful magnitude-7.2 earthquake shook central and southern Mexico on Friday, sending panicked people into the streets. Some walls cracked and fell, but there were no reports of major damage or casualties.

User comments : 52

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VK1
1.4 / 5 (21) Oct 06, 2010
The more energy reaching the earths surface the more cloud coverage is created. Cloud coverage protects the earths surface from the suns energy. The more energy the sun produces the more energy the earth deflects back through surface shielding. The inverse also holds true, the lower the solar output is the less cloud coverage and therefore more energy reaches the earths surface.

Homeostasis. Our home stays at equilibrium. There are changes with time, asteroidal impacts reek havoc on earths surface displacing tectonic plates creating magma bursts which ash up the atmosphere, high energy solar outputs which drastically affect climate etc. These changes are not permanent they equalize with time. We even, humans, play a tiny role in climate change, not much albeit, but we are burning fossil fuels which are adding to the reflective property of the earth. Our human induced global warming is doing the inverse it is reflecting the suns energy into space.
runrig
3.6 / 5 (16) Oct 06, 2010
"The more energy reaching the earths surface the more cloud coverage is created. Cloud coverage protects the earths surface from the suns energy. The more energy the sun produces the more energy the earth deflects back through surface shielding. The inverse also holds true, the lower the solar output is the less cloud coverage and therefore more energy reaches the earths surface.

Rubbish ! The amount of WV the Earth's atmosphere is capable of holding increases with its temperature - and so the net clousd amount remains the same. Basic physics.

"humans, play a tiny role in climate change, not much albeit, but we are burning fossil fuels which are adding to the reflective property of the earth. Our human induced global warming is doing the inverse it is reflecting the suns energy into space."

Again rubbish, the heat absoption properties of CO2 now far outway the reflective effect of atmospheric polutatants. Though did occur during the middle part of the last century.
stealthc
2 / 5 (25) Oct 06, 2010
AGW is a pile of rubbish and this study was done by british elitists who support AGW. It is totally biased, and thus this article receives the coveted junk bin award.
VK1
1.6 / 5 (25) Oct 06, 2010
Stealthc, you're almost right you're just skipping the big business aspect of the situation. "Eco"-friendly products ( solar panels, electric cars etc. ) have been in research and development for decades now while the want for them has not risen in popularity. So where do we go to advance sales of these new "Eco" products? We prove the negative impact of our old non "Eco"-friendly ways. Make the public feel guilty about the impact on the world by reaching them where it hurts ie. the welfare of their offspring growing up in a doomed world and presto, our view has changed and we become acceptive of the new products that'll change the destiny of the world and save our children.
VK1
1.9 / 5 (26) Oct 06, 2010
You're correct, global warming hysteria is exaggerated to unimaginable proportions and the reason is CAPITALISM. The culprits are the companies profiting off of this hysteria and they are the ones funding the research. The reason governments are involved as you say is a secondary wave. Governments are run by individuals who are susceptible to "legal" bribery, by accepting the changing science as legit they can tax citizens for non "Eco"-friendly conduct ie. CARBON tax. Profit profit profit.
barakn
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 06, 2010
This study makes a lot sense. During heightened solar activity, sunspots reduce the amount of visible light but plage releases more ultraviolet light. This will cause a slight shift in the area of the atmosphere where solar energy is absorbed, less in the troposphere and more in the stratosphere (by ozone). This shift to higher altitude energy absorption means the energy is closer to space where it can escape, although there are knock-on effects on global atmospheric circulation as well.

Quite amused by stealthc's hollow attack on this study and it's authors. If there was no AGW, then this new solar/climate relationship would be perfect for explaining the observed temperature increases. What is it they say about shooting a gift horse in the mouth?

What I don't like is the short time period covered by the study, especially since they missed solar max.
VK1
2.1 / 5 (21) Oct 06, 2010
Barakn, I believe stealthc's comment is brought on due to the amount of scientific attention dedicated to climate change and is not accreditable to the research specified in this article. I for one agree with him. It seems like any proposal involving global warming gets funded now a days.
VK1
2 / 5 (21) Oct 06, 2010
Ice caps will continue to melt until they are gone, the earth is in a melting stage, once water levels increase surface area of water coverage will as well at which point more cloud coverage will be produced and as a result the surface of the earth will cool, at this point the whole of earth ( almost ) will become snow covered and the melting process will begin again. This is a natural cycle and is subject to extremes.

If solar output drastically increases water vapor production does too. When the volume of air beneath this huge volume of cloud cover drops in temperature the vapour condenses and freezes. This is an iceage. Mountain peaks, the earths surface everything becomes snow covered. With time the snow melts and given enough time so do the ice caps.

The earth goes through cycles as has been proven scientifically.
PPihkala
3.7 / 5 (15) Oct 06, 2010
I basically agree with AGW, but if we consider pollution by CO2, there is less controversial reason to stop and reverse that pollution. And it's ocean acidification. It is driving aquatic life to extinction and should be stopped and reversed NOW by getting CO2 levels in air to decrease. The longer we delay the turnover, the higher price there will be to be payed, by pollutions effects.
stealthc
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 06, 2010
How does one explain the periods when the dinosaurs lived that had both higher temps and thriving lush environments, and higher co2 amounts by even a magnitude or more than the current co2 levels? Why was the ocean still teeming with life during these eras?
Thorax
3.6 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2010
"we need to carry out further studies to explore the Sun's activity" ... "to work out how we can best protect our planet"


Puny humans! How amusing it is that you think you can control Earth's climate. All the while, being duped by the one that calls himself Gore and the lords that control him.

Please, please, do continue with your dithering about and your futile attempts to reverse powers and ages that are many magnitudes beyond what you can imagine. Go ahead, spend your resources on more "research", transfer your wealth to the carbon brokers. While you are distracted in your folly, our kind will work incessantly and continue to undermine your ecodominance ... ultimately toppling you to your doom.

Your future Insect Masters.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2010
How does one explain the periods when the dinosaurs lived that had both higher temps and thriving lush environments, and higher co2 amounts by even a magnitude or more than the current co2 levels? Why was the ocean still teeming with life during these eras?


1) the standard, accepted history proposed by evolutionists is BS anyway.

2) Oxygen levels in the past were provably much higher, regardless of what you think about time scales.

so in terms of "mega-fauna" including dinosaurs, Oxygen represents chemical energy available to grow and move as a life form. So maximum size of an animal is limited not by CO2 or temperature, but by oxygen. At one time the O2 concentration in the atmpsphere was as high as 35%.

It may infact be more correct to say that there could have been less nitrogen in the atmosphere, and that would have allowed both O2 and CO2 to be double their modern percentages, without actually changing their amount by mass...
VK1
1.6 / 5 (16) Oct 06, 2010
How much CO2 is released into the atmosphere when lightning strikes and sparks a forest fire taking out acres of trees?
Ronan
4.3 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2010
VK1: I have no idea what the actual numbers are (depends on the size of the forest, how dry it is, etc., I'm sure), but the NET effect on the carbon dioxide concentration is nil--because forests are always burning and regrowing, and overall there's no net movement of carbon dioxide into or out of the atmosphere. Fossil fuel burning increases the total amount of carbon circulating through the system (and consequently, the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) because the fuels being burned were not previously part of the carbon cycle, but had instead been buried away for millions of years.
omatumr
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 06, 2010
"These results are challenging what we thought we knew about the Sun's effect on our climate." What?

Did Nobel Laureates Al Gore and the UN's IPCC overlook Earth's heat source!

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Author of "Earth heat source: The Sun"
Ronan
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 06, 2010
Stealthc: Barring a Venus-like situation (which is probably too extreme for any reasonable emission of carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, to bring about on Earth), it's not actually the absolute temperatures that are a cause for concern; it's the rate at which they change. The lifeforms of the mesozoic did fine in their hothouse world because that was the ecosystem they'd evolved in; our own climate is comfortable enough for us, but the dinosaurs would have been absolutely decimated if their climate had suddenly shifted to something like ours. Life on Earth is adapted to the climatic conditions that exist now; change those conditions too quickly for organisms to adapt to them, and a lot of species are going to suffer.
Ronan
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 06, 2010
Quantum Conundrum: ...Passing lightly over the creationism/intelligent design-ism, simply decreasing the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere (at least, without raising the partial pressure of oxygen) isn't going to help you much when it comes to making oxygen available; nitrogen is pretty inert, and it doesn't compete with oxygen for hemoglobin binding sites. Furthermore, increased oxygen only makes gigantism possible for creatures like insects, with no means of actively transporting oxygen into their tissues. For animals with lungs, like the dinosaurs, oxygen concentration in the atmosphere isn't really a limiting factor, because they can easily force as much as they need into their bodies.
ArtflDgr
1 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2010
Junk
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2010
How does one explain the periods when the dinosaurs lived that had both higher temps and thriving lush environments, and higher co2 amounts by even a magnitude or more than the current co2 levels? Why was the ocean still teeming with life during these eras?

This is like asking why there is life in 400 degree ocean water near hydrothermal vents.

How much of that life is human, or even semi-compatible with human life?
Author of "Earth heat source: The Sun"
The heat source for my house is the gas heater. It heats the house up quite a bit when the windows are closed. Increasing CO2 is akin to closing the Earth's windows.
the standard, accepted history proposed by evolutionists is BS anyway.
Surprise, most christians are "evolutionists", including the Pope.
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2010
"We cannot jump to any conclusions based on what we have found during this comparatively short period... (part removed) ...However,"

we're going to go ahead and make a few anyway. lol. Oh and then we will throw in a few unrelated paragraphs about global warming so that people read our article, even though "We cannot jump to any conclusions based on what we have found".

"Following this surprising finding, the researchers behind the study believe it is possible that the inverse is also true and that in periods when the Sun's activity increases, it tends to cool, rather than warm"

Yep, that sounds like a conclusion to me alright.

GSwift7
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2010
"This is like asking why there is life in 400 degree ocean water near hydrothermal vents.

How much of that life is human, or even semi-compatible with human life?"

Okay, lets use a much more contemporary example. In the most recent interglacial the far north of canada and russia were both lush and teeming with megafauna and flora. Now they are a wasteland and commonly used to simulate the surface of mars. The atmosphere was very similar then to what we have now. So many things about prior epochs were so different than our current world, that comparisons are limited in usefullness at best. You're completely right that it's like comparing to an ocean vent.
GSwift7
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2010
As a side note: Did you know that just a few thousand years ago, as the glaciers receded from North America, northern California was a baren wasteland? It took a couple thousand years after the ice sheets melted before plants and animals moved back in. The giant redwoods, for example, are relatively new to that area in geological terms. Totally unrelated, but surprising to most people, so I thought I'd supply your trivia of the day.
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2010
If research comes out of UC or Boulder on global warming you can basically file it with UFO abductions...
GSwift7
2 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2010
Yeah Modern, I've noticed that too. I wouldn't go so far as to file it with UFO abductions, but maybe it could be filed with String Theory? They seem to have a funny mix of both pro- and anti- AGW papers. I'm not really sure where this one fits into that mix (because it could be taken either way, depending on how you read it), but UC and Boulder certainly seem to be very political about their science. It's almost like some of the professors are at war with each other there.
omatumr
2.3 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2010
I want to congratulate Dr. Philip Campbell, the editor of Nature, for having the courage to publish a paper that admits, "These results are challenging what we thought we knew about the Sun's effect on our climate."

This is a reversal of Nature's previously blind support for the dogma of CO2-induced global warming preached by Nobel Laureates Al Gore, the UN's IPCC, and their army of well-funded consensus scientists.

For readers who want to understand how the every-changing Sun influences Earth's climate, look at the picture at the top of this news report and remind yourself that the outer layer of the Sun (on the right) actually extends beyond the Earth (on the left) and all other planets in the solar system.

Earth moves in, and is always completely surrounded by the Sun's heliosphere.

The Sun-Earth link is NOT cause-and-effect at a distance.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2010
Thank you, Professor Joanna Haigh, for confirming the basic reported earlier:

"The Sun encompasses planet Earth, supplies the heat that warms it, and even shakes it. The United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assumed that solar influence on Earth's climate is limited to changes in solar irradiance and adopted the consensus opinion of a hydrogen-filled Sun - the Standard Solar Model (SSM)."

[First sentences in the abstract of the paper: "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun", Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144] arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
omatumr
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2010
This report seems to confirm basic tenets of the paper: "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun" [Energy & Environment 20 (2009) 131-144] arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2010
If research comes out of UC or Boulder on global warming you can basically file it with UFO abductions...
Any reason for that statement?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2010
They seem to have a funny mix of both pro- and anti- AGW papers. I'm not really sure where this one fits into that mix (because it could be taken either way, depending on how you read it), but UC and Boulder certainly seem to be very political about their science. It's almost like some of the professors are at war with each other there.
@GSwift,

Wouldn't that primarily be an indicator of a lack of scientific bias? If their research tilts boths ways, and is politically neutral, wouldn't that logically demand that the research itself is neutral and those writing the journalistic abstracts for political dissemination are in fact the twisted ones? I'm simply asking because I don't like to see someone try to impeach a researcher without valid reason.
VK1
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2010
We must remember the size of the sun and from it realize what a tiny change in its output is capable of producing. The suns 140 million km away from us and is 1.4 million km in diameter, just 100 suns side by side would fill the gap between us. How much heat would the earth be infused with if for example the sun shed a layer. What if it instantly blew off a meter shell ( 1,389,999 km to 1,389,998.999 km )? What would this do to the climate? We think of the sun as a nuclear reactor losing mass but just like on earth with new matterial being brought in the suns gravity brings in new matter. The sun is continually growing in mass ( gravity ) and shedding excess mass ( radiation ). The output of the sun is dependant on its meal ( think solar nursery, mass conjugates to a point and then it radiates, sparks ). The earths temperature is dependant on its powersource ( sun ). Anthropogenic global warming is unreal.
VK1
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2010
What could change the amount of matter the sun eats? How about crossing of the galactic plane. The sun will gain way more mass than it can retain and will blow it off ( increased solar output ), if you're going to make calculations on climate change how about calculating a real threat instead of an unreal one? The galactic plane is teeming with massive radiation, this radiation will add to the suns mass ( due to the suns gravity ) which the sun will radiate away ( increasing earths temperature ), the result will be oceans in the sky ( large cloud covering ) longer result will be an iceage once the temperature between the cloud and earth sufficiently drops. From then melting will take place until another galactic plane crossing. Simple overlooked science which nobody seems to understand. What will the solar panels do to save us during a cold period of a cloud covered earth?
VK1
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2010
How about taking the funding dedicated to global warming ( $7 billion dollars in 2009 in US alone ) and investing it in farming to take care of the children dying of starvation across the world? I guess our priorities are straight, we need to research climate change to save humanity, huh?
GSwift7
3 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2010
@ skeptic:

"Wouldn't that primarily be an indicator of a lack of scientific bias? "

Not necessarily. The science itself can be very good. That doesn't mean that it leads to any conclusions, and it especially doesn't mean that it leads to a conclusion which either supports or counters a political position. I did not mean to slander the research, just the way they tend to draw some politically relevant conclusion from every finding. It almost sounds like the university review board makes them answer a question like "..and how does this impact global warming theory or IPCC findings?" before they are allowed to publish. It's like this article, where such a conclusion seems to be just tacked on at the end by some third party editor with an agenda. It's not just this article. I have noticed a long term pattern of this kind of stuff from Universiy of Colorado especially. They have even made a few anti-agw conclusions which don't fit the evidence presented either.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 07, 2010
It almost sounds like the university review board makes them answer a question like "..and how does this impact global warming theory or IPCC findings?" before they are allowed to publish.
I can see why you would say that, however, there is a an absolutely massive number of papers published and peer reviewed in the field of climatology. The ones that get the most attention are those that speak of or about global warming. It's a media selection bias at play.
runrig
5 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2010
VK1 said "If solar output drastically increases water vapor production does too. When the volume of air beneath this huge volume of cloud cover drops in temperature the vapour condenses and freezes. This is an iceage"
There you go again talking rubbish. Please do some research on basic atmospheric physics.
Any alteration in air temperature affects the quantity of WV it can hold. - warmer more, colder less. Cloud DOES NOT increase in quantity as temperature rises ( though it may become deeper due to instability. It is always in balance. Neither does the air below the cloud cool/freeze, as ( again basic physics ) the cloud layer would provide a greenhouse blanket ( re Venus ).
Appalling ignorance and you espouse this as fact to denigrate legitimate science!
Also Ice-ages have as a main driver the excentric variations in the Earth's orbit. Google "Milankovitch cycles"
eurekalogic
not rated yet Oct 08, 2010
"The more energy reaching the earths surface the more cloud coverage is created. Cloud coverage protects the earths surface from the suns energy. The more energy the sun produces the more energy the earth deflects back through surface shielding. The inverse also holds true, the lower the solar output is the less cloud coverage and therefore more energy reaches the earths surface."

You need to qualify these statements.
Your talking about different types of energy coming to earth. Some make clouds and some donot according to sunspot activity and that is what allows the earth to stay at an equiibrium. Direct observation and temperature measurementoutside the context of long time spans is misleading.
This ties in to an experiment in the past that created clouds and disperse them using various frequencies of elctromagnetic radiation. Even if only the size of a couple of miles I consider it a success. You guys need to start reading reading what DARPA is asking for in the requests.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2010
S_H:

the office of "Pope" or "Bishop of Rome" has no basis in scripture.

The theory of Evolution is diametrically opposed to Biblical history, making the pope or anyone else who subscribes to it a heretic.

Fish, whales, and birds were created on the 5th day.

Land animals and humans were created on the 6th day as distinct and seperate creations, with man's creation being described specifically as unique from all others.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2010
the office of "Pope" or "Bishop of Rome" has no basis in scripture.
Neither does the abolition of slavery.
The theory of Evolution is diametrically opposed to Biblical history, making the pope or anyone else who subscribes to it a heretic.
By that logic, anyone who thinks slavery is wrong is a heretic.

Are you in favor of slavery?
stanfrax
1 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2010
we have all been lyed to and everthing is all on a massive scale - you all know whats going on - how much proof do people need - wanna hear somthing you dont want to hear - were not going to make it - whats to debate about - its just drama the same cycle - people who av beleifs - make your peace there will be no people to prey to gods anymore - look at the weather patterns - this is a science place - your all clever people - why arnt you talking to news channals - yes there owned but this is the same talk it was 6 months ago - its doing nothing - its all ego crap
3432682
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 09, 2010
These research studies should not automatically be linked to global warming/change/disruption (whatever's fashionable). In the meantime, the amount of warming in the last 150 years has been tiny (0.6 F), and the Earth is cooler now than 90% of the last 10,000 years. We're lucky to be in a warm period, compared to the 90-95% multiple ice ages of the last 700k years. Now get off my lawn.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2010
Neither does the abolition of slavery


Actually, you are quite wrong, and quite ignorant of the facts.

1) the "Slavery" that was allowed in the OT in the Bible was not like what was allowed in America. It more closely resembles the concept of the "endentured servant," who works for 7 years to pay off a debt. You can read about that for yourself in the Torah if you are honest. Essentially, this was meant to be an "honest" bankruptcy system.

2) Try Luke 4:18, 2 Cor. 3:17, try the "Golden Rule".

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
rushty
3 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2010
AGW may or may not be real, as ever, but I finally feel like the standby argument of "consequences of inaction now vs globally historic huge expenses now" is finally starting to lose effect. I'm glad the world has finally settled the he** down and realized hey, maybe we don't quite exactly understand the most complicated system science attempts to predict. Yet.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2010
1) the "Slavery" that was allowed in the OT in the Bible was not like what was allowed in America. It more closely resembles the concept of the "endentured servant," who works for 7 years to pay off a debt. You can read about that for yourself in the Torah if you are honest. Essentially, this was meant to be an "honest" bankruptcy system.
You're a total moron.
Leviticus 25:44-47
" 44Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever"

There was slavery, and there was indentured servitude. I'm speaking of slavery.
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2010
the office of "Pope" or "Bishop of Rome" has no basis in scripture.

The theory of Evolution is diametrically opposed to Biblical history, making the pope or anyone else who subscribes to it a heretic.
So you are one of those "Christians" who consider the majority of Christian denominations to be heretics and/or sectarians?
scenage
5 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2010
Can't we all just be friends and not talk about religion? :)
Thex1138
5 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2010
Hilarious!! An article about the suns effects on the Earth turns to a religious debate...
Thex1138
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2010
To be fair tho... the Sun is how old... a couple of billion years old... the research was for 3 years... we have 'organic' and isotope and other records dating back millions of years... Some data is conclusive but not all... It's all part of a bigger picture of course... but really.. a 3 year study and some scientists are making some pretty big conclusions about it... the report seems slanted to spur on corportisation and the carbon capturing economies of reluctant companies... AKA a new top-tier bond market... of which most of the profiteering from these bonds will be to elitist investors and the middle men do all the hard work...
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2010
AKA a new top-tier bond market... of which most of the profiteering from these bonds will be to elitist investors and the middle men do all the hard work...
Are you defending the old top-tier markets against the (perceived) threat of a new top-tier market? And the hard-working middle men with their tumble dryers against the lazy elitists with their clothes lines?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2010
AKA a new top-tier bond market... of which most of the profiteering from these bonds will be to elitist investors and the middle men do all the hard work...
One would think that someone who was concerned about job recovery and economic growth would want to see a new top tier market of investment in manufacturing and pollution controls systems. I don't really have a problem with getting rich, saving the planet, and putting people back to work in one stroke of the pen.
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2010
I don't really have a problem with getting rich, saving the planet, and putting people back to work in one stroke of the pen.

How does an over-regulated state accomplish this without cutting the red tape?
Thex1138
2 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2010
AKA a new top-tier bond market... of which most of the profiteering from these bonds will be to elitist investors and the middle men do all the hard work...
One would think that someone who was concerned about job recovery and economic growth would want to see a new top tier market of investment in manufacturing and pollution controls systems. I don't really have a problem with getting rich, saving the planet, and putting people back to work in one stroke of the pen.

Those whom are creating a top tier bond market for carbon are NOT interested in job creation... they are interested in profit... nor keeping people / creating jobs... just leaching of of people...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Oct 12, 2010
How does an over-regulated state accomplish this without cutting the red tape?
They don't. There's a lot of red tape that needs to be slashed. That doesn't mean we should outright ban regulations. This is not a feast or famine proposition.
Those whom are creating a top tier bond market for carbon are NOT interested in job creation... they are interested in profit... nor keeping people / creating jobs... just leaching of of people...
If no one is working on the technologies and other measures required to create the top tier bond market, it won't exist. So now you'll have to justify how a top tier functional market will come into play without any workforce.

More news stories

China says massive area of its soil polluted

A huge area of China's soil covering more than twice the size of Spain is estimated to be polluted, the government said Thursday, announcing findings of a survey previously kept secret.

European climate at the +2 C global warming threshold

A global warming of 2 C relative to pre-industrial climate has been considered as a threshold which society should endeavor to remain below, in order to limit the dangerous effects of anthropogenic climate change.

Atom probe assisted dating of oldest piece of earth

(Phys.org) —It's a scientific axiom: big claims require extra-solid evidence. So there were skeptics in 2001 when University of Wisconsin-Madison geoscience professor John Valley dated an ancient crystal ...